Douglas Mackenzie v. California Attorney General et al

Filing 134

ORDER by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank, re Report and Recommendation (Issued) 126 . Petitioner's objection [Doc # 133 ] is OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation [Doc # 126 ] is ADOPTED. The First Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc # 105 ] is DENIED. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. (dml)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

WESTERN DIVISION

10
11

______________________________________

12

DOUGLAS MACKENZIE,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL,
)
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
)
)
_______________________________________

Case No. SA CV 12-00432-VBF-JC
ORDER
Overruling Petitioner’s Objections;
Adopting the Report & Recommendation;
Denying the Habeas Corpus Petition;
Dismissing the Action With Prejudice;
Directing Entry of Separate COA Ruling;
Directing Entry of Separate Final Judgment;
Terminating and Closing the Action (JS-6)

20
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the First Amended Petition
21
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2254
22
("petition") (CM/ECF Document (“Doc 105”), the respondent warden's answer and accompanying
23
memorandum (Docs 108 and 109), the relevant decision(s) of the California state courts, the
24
state-court “lodged documents” submitted by the respondent in paper form (listed in Doc 20, the
25
Notice of Lodging filed with respondent’s answer to the original habeas petition), petitioner's reply
26
(sealed full version at Doc 121, redacted public version at Doc 113) and accompanying exhibits
27
(Docs 114 and 122), respondent’s sur-reply filed with leave of Court (Doc 118), petitioner
28

1

MacKenzie’s November 2015 Citation of Supplemental Authorities (Doc ), the Report and

2

Recommendation ("R&R") issued by the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

3

P. 72(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) on April 11, 2016 (Doc 126), petitioner's timely September

4

13, 2016 objections to the R&R (Doc 133), and the applicable law.

5
6

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) gave respondent a right to respond to the

7

objections, but the time to do so has elapsed and respondent has filed neither a response nor

8

a request for an extension of time. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to the merits without waiting

9

further.” Ruelas v. Muniz, No. SA CV 14-01761, 2016 WL 540769, *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2016)

10

(Fairbank, J.). “As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has engaged in de novo review

11

of the portions of the R&R to which petitioner has specifically objected and finds no defect of law,

12

fact, or logic in the . . . R&R.” Rael v. Foulk, No. LA CV 14-02987 Doc. 47, 2015 WL 4111295,

13

*1 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2015), COA denied, No. 15-56205 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2016). The Court finds

14

discussion of petitioner’s objections to be unnecessary on this record. Accord United States ex rel.

15

Walterspiel v. Bayer AG, 639 F. App’x 164, 168-69 (4th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) (Keenan, Harris,

16

Hamilton) (“[The Magistrate Act] “merely requires the district court to ‘make a de novo

17

determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendation to

18

which objection is made.’ The district court complied with this requirement. Accordingly, we find

19

no procedural error in the district court’s decision not to address specifically Walterspiel’s

20

objections.”), pet. cert. filed, No. 16-8 (U.S. June 29, 2016).

21

Accordingly, finding no defect of law, fact, or logic in Magistrate Judge Chooljian’s well-

22

reasoned R&R, the Court will adopt the R&R, accept the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and

23

legal conclusions, and implement her recommendations.

24
25

ORDER

26

Petitioner's objection [Doc #133] is OVERRULED.

27

The Report and Recommendation [Doc #126] is ADOPTED.

28

The First Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc #105] is DENIED.

1
2

The Court will rule on a certificate of appealability by separate order.

3
4

Final judgment will be entered in favor of respondent consistent with this order.

5

"As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), the Court will enter judgment by separate document."

6

Toy v. Soto, 2015 WL 2168744, *1 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2015) (citing Jayne v. Sherman, 706 F.3d 994,

7

1009 (9th Cir. 2013)) (footnote 1 omitted), appeal filed, No. 15-55866 (9th Cir. June 5, 2015).

8
9
10

This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6).

11
12

Dated: Wednesday, September 21, 2016

________________________________

13

Valerie Baker Fairbank

14

Senior United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28